Adjudication and Decisions
When FINRA determines that violations of securities rules have occurred and formal disciplinary action is necessary, the Enforcement Department or Market Regulation Department files a complaint with the Office of Hearing Officers (OHO).
The Office arranges a three-person panel to hear the case. The panel is chaired by a hearing officer who is an employee of the Office of Hearing Officers. The Chief Hearing Officer appoints two industry panelists, drawn primarily from a pool of current and former securities industry members of FINRA's District Committees, as well as its Market Regulation Committee, former members of FINRA's National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) and former FINRA Governors.
At the hearing, the parties present evidence for the panel to determine whether a firm or individual has engaged in conduct that violates FINRA rules, SEC regulations or federal securities laws. In reaching its decision, the hearing panel also considers previous court, SEC, and NAC decisions to determine if violations occurred. The NAC is the national committee which reviews initial decisions rendered in FINRA disciplinary and membership proceedings.
For each case, the hearing panel will issue a written decision explaining the reasons for its ruling and consult the FINRA Sanction Guidelines to determine the appropriate sanctions if violations have occurred. FINRA also, when feasible and appropriate, can order firms and individuals to make restitution to harmed customers.
Under FINRA's disciplinary procedures, a firm or individual has the right to appeal a hearing panel decision to the NAC, or the NAC may on its own initiate a review of a decision. On appeal, the NAC will determine if a hearing panel's findings were legally correct, factually supported and consistent with FINRA's Sanction Guidelines. While a panel decision is on appeal, the sanction is not enforced against the firm or individual.
Unless FINRA's Board of Governors decides to review the NAC's appellate decision, that decision represents FINRA's final action. A firm or individual can appeal FINRA's decision to the SEC and then to federal court.
|Date of Decision||Proceeding No.||Title||Type|
|Feb 9, 2006||E9B2003033501||Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Issuance Of Rule 8210 Requests for Information||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 11, 2006||E9B2003033501||Order Denying In Part and Granting In Part Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery||Disciplinary Order|
|Aug 11, 2010||E9B2003033701||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|Jul 30, 2009||E9B2003033701||Keith Howard Medeck||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 9, 2006||EAF0300770001||Order For Sequestration of Witnesses||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 23, 2006||EAF0300770001||Order Permitting Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 15, 2006||EAF0400300001||Order Granting Parties Leave to Offer Expert Testimony and Amending Schedule for Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 25, 2009||EAF0400300001||Kirlin Securities, Inc., Anthony J. Kirincic, David O. Lindner and Andrew J. Israel||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 19, 2006||EAF0400300001||Order Prohibiting Use of Subpeonas||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 28, 2007||EAF0400300001||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Kirlin Securities, Inc., Anthony J. Kirincic, David O. Lindner and Andrew J. Israel||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 1, 2006||EAF0400300001||Order Regarding Hearing Procedures||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 11, 2006||EAF0400300001||Order Denying Respondents' Rule 9252 Motion for the Production of Data, Documents and Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 10, 2006||EAF0400300001||Order Directing the Parties to Cease Sending Non-Compliant Communications to the Office of Hearing Officers||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 3, 2006||EAF0400300001||Order Directing Respondents to File Exhibits and Witness List in Compliance With Pre-Hearing Order, and Extending Related Deadlines||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 16, 2008||EAF0400630001||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Mutual Service Corporation, et al.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 18, 2010||EAF0400630001||Kevin L. Cohen, Dennis S. Kaminski, and Gari C. Sanfilippo||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 1, 2007||ELI2004026701||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Iftikhar Ul Haq||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 6, 2009||ELI2004026701||Iftikhar Ul Haq||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 2, 2001||EQS000002||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. A. G. Halvorson Securities Inc.||Expedited Decision, Rule 9540 Suspension Decisions|
|Feb 8, 2002||EQS010002||Order Granting Complainant's Motion To Dismiss||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 18, 2011||EQS100001||Department of Member Regulation v. Intermountain Financial Services, Inc.||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|Apr 19, 2002||FPI010002||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Samuel Engelsberg||Expedited Decision, Rule 9540 Suspension Decisions|
|Mar 24, 2002||FPI010004||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Toni Valentino||Expedited Decision, Rule 9540 Suspension Decisions|
|May 21, 2003||FPI010004||Toni Valentino||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 11, 2003||FPI020002||Bret Steinhart||Disciplinary Decision|